Slashdot Mirror
Firefox 4 RC1 Released
IgnitusBoyone writes "Mozilla has now released Firefox 4 RC1. For most beta participants the update should be automatic, but for those holding out until it gets closer to feature freeze, now is likely a good time to test the next major release. Aside from a complete redesign of the user interface, Firefox 4 offers several new features (release notes) including an integrated sync manager, improved methods for tab-switching and organization for tab-heavy users."
It looks like they made Firefox look exactly like Chrome. However, there is one problem - Firefox's UI still feels sluggish, just like before. Personally I love how fast Opera's UI is and it makes the browser feel lightweight too. Chrome is close to that, but both IE and Firefox lag behind. Maybe it's XUL or something else, but it needs to be improved.
Oh yeah, and Firefox is the only browser that doesn't support H.264 even if it's installed in the system. How am I supposed to watch those HTML5 H.264 videos?
I have to say that so far I'm very impressed. Once I'd moved the tabs and buttons back to where I like them it was great. Memory usage is much better and the speed compared to 3.x is incredible. Sync is nice as you can run your own server.
I prefer the old buttons and liked having a status bar but i'm sure somebody will create add-ons to fix that.
I am a free slashdotter. I will not be modded, blogged, DRM'd, patented, podcasted or RFID'd. My life is my own.
if you want all you extensions to work. Half of them will be disabled in the new version because their authors haven't had time to release a version that this particular version of FF4 will accept. I suggest waiting until FF4 becomes mainstream if you want the transition to be seamless.
If you don't care that much about extensions however, go right ahead: FF4 is *great*: it's quick and less memory hungry, if nothing else. I've been loving it since it came out.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
RC is scheduled for later this month.
(But of course there won't be a / vertisement for it.) SeaMonkey 2.1 final will be based on Gecko 2.0.1
FREE magazine : http://clarkesworldmagazine.com/prior/
There's no question that the performance has increased and pages are rendered much quicker, but it does come at a cost. Memory consumption and memory leaks are STILL a problem. Having said that, Chrome's memory usage isn't much better, and neither is IEs.
I've been using FF4 since about beta 7. I really hope they got the stability issues fixed, especially with Tab Candy, which has been quite glitchy for me during the betas.
Chrome still *feels* snappier, but the JavaScript tests I performed showed them about equal for the most part.
Chrome's WebGL is faster, but glitchier (re-draw issues with non-webgl components on the screen?).
Either way, it's an awesome product. I use FF4 and Chrome daily, so it's not like I am "choosing" one or the other. Both are stellar products.
And ultimately, I feel more comfortable with FF4, because it's not produced by an advertising company.
I've been using FF4 since one of the earlier betas (I think beta 4?) and so I've seen the new features as it comes in. Is it me or does a lot of the new features, especially the UI features seem completely unnecessary? I've only used app-tabs maybe once and Panorama twice just to see what they do, and after that, I completely disregarded them. I haven't used Sync at all. Is this experience common with other Firefox power users? Or am I just being a bit of a Luddite in not using them?
My postings are informational and does not constitute legal advice. Act on it at your risk.
RC1 has been out for a week now
Please let new tabs open alongside the current tab! With a bunch of tabs, it makes navigation between the parent and child tab so much easier.
Work has a Hudson server set up for automated tests. It's godawful slow with firefox 3, so I gave it a try with Chrome. Chrome is just ridiculously faster with it. It's usable with Firefox 4, but there are still places where the browser just freezes up for a second or two. So far I'm just using chrome for that Hudson server, but it wouldn't take much for Chrome to unseat Firefox as my default browser, and I've been using Firefox for as long as I can remember.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
I've gotta say, the RC isn't bad. I hate that they've completely gone the Chrome route with the UI, though (although Opera did about the same thing). If some of my plugins (Logmein in particular) worked on it, I'd probably even keep using it (as it is, Logmein only works well with Internet Explorer and stable builds of FF).
Earn a % of cash back from Newegg, Tiger Direct, Walmart.com, and more: http://www.mrrebates.com?refid=458505
It's probably due to the over-saturated coverage on slashdot, but I feel like FF4 has almost been released for the past year now.
I'm actually curious as to what you mean by the fonts looking blurry? They look the same to me as in any other application...
For bragging about the speed of the browser so much, I did a few loads with Firefox 3.6 and 4RC1 and my home page opened quite a bit faster with version 3.6, in fact almost twice as fast! Although I must say, I do like the new look, very similar to Chrome (like many have stated).
I think I'll hold out for the actual release of 4.
The sync plug-in for FF 3.6* makes a mess of my bookmarks. I use several computers at home and at work. Screwing up my data is NOT an option.
Can anyone report whether the bookmark sync is robust in the 4 RC? I like the idea of the feature, but Xmarks does it better.
Rich And Stupid is not so bad as Working For Rich And Stupid.
Firefox 5 was released back in December
Does anyone know if Firefox will support upgrading from the previous version, including all add ons, extensions, plug ins, etc. that are available in the new version?
Are you using Windows 7? It's an issue specific to Windows 7 (and Vista, I think), that has to do with the new hardware accelerated rendering engine (apparently). Which means it might also be video-card specific.
But you should easily be able to see the difference by comparing a web page opened in Firefox 4 with one in Firefox 3.6. Firefox 3.6 will use sub-pixel rendering and look nice and crisp, Firefox 4 will use some weird antialiasing algorithm that just makes the fonts a blur. (The letter "I", for example, becomes double-wide and half as dark - a well-known problem with unhinted antialiasing.)
At first I thought I was just going blind, but other people have pointed out the same flaw. It's there, it's real, and apparently, Mozilla blames Microsoft.
Again: it only happens under Windows 7/Vista, so if you're using any other OS and don't see it, that's why. If you are using Windows 7/Vista and don't see it, then I guess you're just lucky. I don't know the specifics of what causes it, just that it's new as of Firefox 4.
I'd use Chrome.
What stake do they have in this? It's not like they're going to be left out in the cold if WebM succeeds. After all, the whole point of WebM is to provide a truly open standard that everybody can use, whether commercial or not. So can somebody pinpoint exactly what the H.264 cheerleaders are fighting for? My best guess is that they simply don't like change, same as anybody else -- only they get downright nasty about it for some reason. If you notice, these are the same people that aree vehemently opposed to Theora, as if their lives depended on it. Perhaps some of them are paid shills, but surely that doesn't include all of them.
Again, what in the world are they fighting for?
I want that back!!
If only because it always gave me another way to score bragging rights over Chrome users
Is there a browser where the "back" button is equivalent to switching to a tab with the previous state, and similarly with the "forward" button? In particular, those operations shouldn't hit the network. I end up browsing by clicking on every link in a new tab so I can emulate this. It would certainly help reduce tab clutter if the back and forward buttons could navigate history as if it were tabs.
lolwtfbbq?
Software isn't fucking BETA until it's feature complete.
Mozilla is adding features to release candidates??
Boy, that sure sounds like some real "innovation" right there...
You can move tabs back on the bottom, restore the bookmarks bar, and change the Firefox button back to the menu bar. You can restore the statusbar with Status 4 Evar, and you can move and add any buttons you want with a simple right-click. All of these are very trivial to do, and if you don't like customizing your browser there's always Seamonkey, which is pretty much just Firefox without the shiny-ness and a more classic UI.
"Our country is not nearly so overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broadminded." -Archbishop Fulton Sheen
Kinda reminds me of DukeNukemForever, with "10 years" instead of "year".
Wait, the status bar is seriously gone from FF4? (I hadn't investigated or used it yet) How do they expect people to avoid phishing/suspect links if there's no simple way to tell where a link leads? Or is there a different place in the UI for it now?
How do they expect people to avoid phishing/suspect links if there's no simple way to tell where a link leads
Hover over the link, which pops up a box on the bottom of the screen with the link in it (albeit clipped). This feature was introduced in b12.
So is the status bar gone? Yes. Is there a way to preview a link URL? Also yes.
The Pentadactyl nightly builds work great with FF4.
http://dactyl.sourceforge.net/pentadactyl/index
Why not use that?
"Adblock has worked for at least the past 3 betas, and that's the one I care about." - by Skarecrow77 (1714214) on Thursday March 10, @08:53AM (#35442076)
Then, you're using an INFERIOR solution (at least by itself)... how so? Ok, take a read (it's long yes, but, with GOOD reason(s)):
"Ever since I've installed a host file (http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm) to redirect advertisers to my loopback, I haven't had any malware, spyware, or adware issues. I first started using the host file 5 years ago." - by TestedDoughnut (1324447) on Monday December 13, @12:18AM (#34532122)
FROM http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1907528&cid=34532122
Now?
20++ ADVANTAGES OF HOSTS FILES OVER DNS SERVERS &/or ADBLOCK ALONE for added layered security:
1.) HOSTS files are useable for all these purposes because they are present on all Operating Systems that have a BSD based IP stack (even ANDROID) and do adblocking for ANY webbrowser, email program, etc. (any webbound program).
2.) ADBLOCK CAN BE DETECTED FOR: See here on that note -> http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2010/03/why-ad-blocking-is-devastating-to-the-sites-you-love.ars
HOSTS files are NOT BLOCKABLE by websites, as was tried on users by ARSTECHNICA (and it worked, proving HOSTS files are a better solution for this because they cannot be blocked & detected for, in that manner), to that websites' users' dismay:
PERTINENT QUOTE/EXCERPT FROM ARSTECHNICA THEMSELVES:
----
An experiment gone wrong - By Ken Fisher | Last updated March 6, 2010 11:11 AM
http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2010/03/why-ad-blocking-is-devastating-to-the-sites-you-love.ars
"Starting late Friday afternoon we conducted a 12 hour experiment to see if it would be possible to simply make content disappear for visitors who were using a very popular ad blocking tool. Technologically, it was a success in that it worked. Ad blockers, and only ad blockers, couldn't see our content."
and
"Our experiment is over, and we're glad we did it because it led to us learning that we needed to communicate our point of view every once in a while. Sure, some people told us we deserved to die in a fire. But that's the Internet!"
Thus, as you can see? Well - THAT all "went over like a lead balloon" with their users in other words, because Arstechnica was forced to change it back to the old way where ADBLOCK still could work to do its job (REDDIT however, has not, for example). However/Again - this is proof that HOSTS files can still do the job, blocking potentially malscripted ads (or ads in general because they slow you down) vs. adblockers like ADBLOCK!
----
3.) Adblock doesn't protect email programs external to FF, Hosts files do. THIS IS GOOD VS. SPAM MAIL or MAILS THAT BEAR MALICIOUS SCRIPT, or, THAT POINT TO MALICIOUS SCRIPT VIA URLS etc.
4.) Adblock won't get you to your favorite sites if a DNS server goes down or is DNS-poisoned, hosts will (this leads to points 4-7 next below).
5.) Adblock doesn't allow you to hardcode in your favorite websites into it so you don't make DNS server calls and so you can avoid tracking by DNS request logs, hosts do (DNS servers are also being abused by the Chinese lately and by the Kaminsky flaw -> http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/082908-kaminsky-flaw-prompts-dns-server.html for years now). Hosts protect against those problems via hardcodes of your fav sites (you should verify against the TLD that does nothing but cache IPAddre
I tried it. It sucked.
IMO Mozilla made a mistake in removing the status bar. Link and other information can now be spoofed by malicious web pages because the user will expect that info to appear within the page rendering area.
"Ever since I've installed a host file (http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm) to redirect advertisers to my loopback, I haven't had any malware, spyware, or adware issues. I first started using the host file 5 years ago." - by TestedDoughnut (1324447) on Monday December 13, @12:18AM (#34532122)
FROM http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1907528&cid=34532122
Now?
20++ ADVANTAGES OF HOSTS FILES OVER DNS SERVERS &/or ADBLOCK ALONE for added layered security:
1.) HOSTS files are useable for all these purposes because they are present on all Operating Systems that have a BSD based IP stack (even ANDROID) and do adblocking for ANY webbrowser, email program, etc. (any webbound program).
2.) ADBLOCK CAN BE DETECTED FOR: See here on that note -> http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2010/03/why-ad-blocking-is-devastating-to-the-sites-you-love.ars
HOSTS files are NOT BLOCKABLE by websites, as was tried on users by ARSTECHNICA (and it worked, proving HOSTS files are a better solution for this because they cannot be blocked & detected for, in that manner), to that websites' users' dismay:
PERTINENT QUOTE/EXCERPT FROM ARSTECHNICA THEMSELVES:
----
An experiment gone wrong - By Ken Fisher | Last updated March 6, 2010 11:11 AM
http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2010/03/why-ad-blocking-is-devastating-to-the-sites-you-love.ars
"Starting late Friday afternoon we conducted a 12 hour experiment to see if it would be possible to simply make content disappear for visitors who were using a very popular ad blocking tool. Technologically, it was a success in that it worked. Ad blockers, and only ad blockers, couldn't see our content."
and
"Our experiment is over, and we're glad we did it because it led to us learning that we needed to communicate our point of view every once in a while. Sure, some people told us we deserved to die in a fire. But that's the Internet!"
Thus, as you can see? Well - THAT all "went over like a lead balloon" with their users in other words, because Arstechnica was forced to change it back to the old way where ADBLOCK still could work to do its job (REDDIT however, has not, for example). However/Again - this is proof that HOSTS files can still do the job, blocking potentially malscripted ads (or ads in general because they slow you down) vs. adblockers like ADBLOCK!
----
3.) Adblock doesn't protect email programs external to FF, Hosts files do. THIS IS GOOD VS. SPAM MAIL or MAILS THAT BEAR MALICIOUS SCRIPT, or, THAT POINT TO MALICIOUS SCRIPT VIA URLS etc.
4.) Adblock won't get you to your favorite sites if a DNS server goes down or is DNS-poisoned, hosts will (this leads to points 4-7 next below).
5.) Adblock doesn't allow you to hardcode in your favorite websites into it so you don't make DNS server calls and so you can avoid tracking by DNS request logs, hosts do (DNS servers are also being abused by the Chinese lately and by the Kaminsky flaw -> http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/082908-kaminsky-flaw-prompts-dns-server.html for years now). Hosts protect against those problems via hardcodes of your fav sites (you should verify against the TLD that does nothing but cache IPAddress-to-domainname/hostname resolutions via NSLOOKUP, PINGS, &/or WHOIS though, regularly, so you have the correct IP & it's current)).
6.) HOSTS files protect you vs. DNS-poisoning &/or the Kaminsky flaw in DNS servers, and allow you to get to sites reliably vs. things like the Chinese are doing to DNS ->
Hi. I was using FF 4, since early beta. Fantastic release, seams like a different browser in comparison to 3.x. I have one question though, still waiting for GPU accelerated layers on Intel GMA 950 - when FFX will support GPU (win32/d3d) ?
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/flashvideoreplacer/ "Replace embedded flash videos and display them with a different plugin or standalone player, download or automatically redirect to WebM player when available."
RC1 still managed to corrupt places.sqlite (the History/Bookmarks database) when I tried to upgrade from Firefox 3.6, just like one of the last 4.0 betas. I had to install a portable edition of FF 3.6, open a backup of my profile with it, and set up Sync in both installations before I could use my existing browser history in the new installation.
Oh, and it now takes about 2 seconds to switch between tabs on a 3-year-old PC.
Which is better than when it was missing entirely (it was displayed in a halfassed fashion in the url bar), but still pretty bad. It clips *less*, but it still clips, plus it's always black text, regardless of whether, say, you're viewing a page with a black background.
Every beta release, I turn off Status-4-Evar, determine that FF is unusable without it, and turn it back on. It's sort of sad, but whatever, I can live with having to run one tiny addon to make the browser usable. I've been mostly happy with it except for that.
I'm using Windows 7 and I don't see it... that's why I was wondering... everything looks exactly the same as other applications on Windows 7...